Some people here are a little suspicious of your motives for wanting to return to WWGHA at this time; and the person you have to thank for that is Maggie, because she signed up here earlier this month and for reasons unknown trolled the forum. She lasted a week before being incarcerated in the ER, where she remains.

Now that wasn't particularly helpful, given that the Admins at IGI and WWGHA have recently been offering olive branches to each other. The last thing anyone needed was a troll attack, in either direction.

On the other hand, other senior IGI members such as Argyle and Hemingway have also recently joined, and they're getting along OK, as far as I know.

So.... thanks to Maggie, the whole situation is now a little delicate. Good luck with negotiating it.

Maggie is opinionated; it says that right in her username. You should have known from the start she was going to make waves.

She was very insulting too and made lots of false accusations. She even accused me of treated a theist forum member like dirt - a forum member who I used to joke about with (and was generally quite liked) and am still in contact with after he's left the forum, all you had to do was read our posts to see that it was completely false, she was all about pointing fingers at others but had no intent of being held accountable for her own behaviour...hence she didn't once address the fact he statements about me were false.

She broke a lot of rules with no sign of interest of sticking to them either. She seemed to have this pre-conceived view of the forum before engaging it and it didn't change throughout, regardless of those who were patient with her and tried explaining things to her in a calm and reasonable manner. Now, I'm not an IGI member (and other WWGHA members don't post/visit there), it only took for somebody to figure out who she was and explain to us what she was like and by then it was too late. Though, I don't think it matters as it doesn't make her behaviour any less appalling.

I don't know exactly what she's like over there, but does this paint the picture for you too?

Anyway, once in a while we see this conflict between the two forums and don't fully understand why it actually happens - we know what has happened and the reasons for it, yet see little point in it - at the very least I don't see much point to it (I can't speak on behalf of everybody else). We have different approaches and different styles and how we moderate is different too. Our moderation is more situational, IGI's is more by the book (from what I can tell). Frankly, I generally say to people, if you don't like how we do it here, you don't have to post, there's plenty of other forums like this out there, but handle things differently (like IGI). I love how this forum works and wouldn't want to see it change and find it irritating when people feel the need to tell us how we should be doing things. I like that WWGHA & IGI are different, it gives people out there choice. Unfortunately, we get some bad rep from theists we've ended up banning (and probably atheists we've banned too)...but then you kinda expect that. Somebody who's banned isn't going to go around telling people how great the forum is.

Quote from: Mooby

Your suspicions are probably better placed in the posts that got me banned last time than what someone from IGI did or failed to do.

I was a moderator when you were banned (Moderator B01) and I remember the thread in the admin section and the decision wasn't sudden. Members tend to build up a profile in the admin sections (as it works the same for many forums out there). I know I put my opinion in there, but I can't remember how involved I was with it - I think I might have engaged you in thread, but I don't remember. I had even suggested adding rules for us to quote in the future (about lawyering) but it wasn't considered to be worth it. You can't write a set of forum rules to account for every situation and adding rules for every occassion is silly - people who write these rules are volunteers and are not trained lawyers and it's better for the mod team to be out there moderating than arguing how to define the rules everytimes somebody does something that's unfair, out of line or disruptive.

IMO the best forums I've visited work by that mechanic, because it allows a moderator to deal with disruptive situation that's not technically against the rules if you were to use any legal interpretation. It doesn't suit everybody or every forum's goals and that's fine, you can't please everyone.

So generally it's left up to a moderator's discretion here, rather than letting something slide because there's a gap left uncovered. A 'ban' is not the first course of action, nor is the ER. If a moderator gives you instructions or a warning, you know you're doing something wrong and you have the time to rectify it.

That's how I'd explain it and it's how I remember it. And iirc it was explained back when it happened. But I think the important thing is, you've been unbanned, you're welcome to post and if you're willing to accept how things work around here, then I'm sure there won't be problems. I personally don't agree unbanning people is necessarily the right way to build these bridges as it might send out wrong or mixed messages. But I guess you've got to make amends in good faith. I don't post at IGI and I don't care how you guys do it over there and yet I keep hearing of (and seeing) some of this infighting.

So welcome back to the forums. I hope it works out for you and hope to see all of us getting along.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Anyway, once in a while we see this conflict between the two forums and don't fully understand why it actually happens - we know what has happened and the reasons for it, yet see little point in it - at the very least I don't see much point to it (I can't speak on behalf of everybody else).

I don't think it's really that hard to understand. There's a lot of bad blood going back to WWGHA1, early ATT, and early WWGHA2, and that was a large part of what inspired the original IGI creators to make their own forum. (Fun trivia: its precursor was the parody site "Stink Stank"). A lot of the involved members are still active on IGI, and a lot of the members they had problems with are still active on WWGHA.

I was never part of that drama, but I've certainly heard a lot about it. The bickering was spilling onto WWGHA1 before the walls came crumbling down, and after the mass exodus to ATT the ban stories started to roll in. I opted to stick with WWGHA, and watched thread after thread sprout up by banned members from ATT who came back bewildered, frustrated, and angry. I still haven't forgotten the one thread where it was revealed that two mentally challenged members had been banned in the same day. And just last year I heard from a reliable source how they watched one of those mentally challenged members be "teased" and "laughed at" behind closed doors on WWGHA1.

And then, of course, there are the many individual stories of members who felt mistreated over the years not related to that early drama. You see, when anti-WWGHA sentiment shows up on IGI, very rarely is it from someone who hasn't been here. Nearly every single post is from someone who tried this forum and came away with bad memories. Now, you can write off some of the above as exaggeration or hearsay, and I fully admit that I was not a first-hand witness to most of it, but my point is that this isn't just one or two pissed off parties poisoning the well. There are an awful lot of people who have had an awful lot of problems with this site, which is why it baffles me that you would make a comment like that.

Not baffled that you personally don't see a point in it, of course. Moreso baffled in the overall message of what you're saying. Imagine someone telling a black man, "Anyway, once in a while we see this conflict between the two races and don't fully understand why it actually happens - we know what has happened and the reasons for it, yet see little point in it - at the very least I don't see much point to it (I can't speak on behalf of everybody else)." The point is that it's easy for one side to slight a group of people and then say, "My bad!" and expect them to get over it. It's a lot harder for the other side to ever trust them again, especially when the offending parties are still in charge.

So yeah, that probably has a lot to do with it.

Quote

Unfortunately, we get some bad rep from theists we've ended up banning (and probably atheists we've banned too)...but then you kinda expect that. Somebody who's banned isn't going to go around telling people how great the forum is.

I don't know the level of familiarity you have with regards to the stuff I described above, but it sounds like you don't fully grasp the nuances of some of the tensions underlying this sentiment.

Quote

I was a moderator when you were banned (Moderator B01) and I remember the thread in the admin section and the decision wasn't sudden.

Perhaps not for you. For all I know, the thread was a mile long and started the day I returned from my posting hiatus (which would have made it a 3 month decision). However, the only time I can ever remember being addressed by a moderator in my four years on WWGHA to that point (2 on WWGHA1, 2 on WWGHA2) was the same day I was banned. Maybe there were other times that I've forgotten; I don't know, my memory isn't perfect. But from my point of view, it was pretty damn sudden. Especially since I was warned I was headed for an ER thread and then signed on to find out that this was skipped in favor of just permanently banning me. Apparently the ER could not contain the awesomeness of the Moo.

Up until that point, I had spent a lot of my time trying to help other theists get out of the ER by behaving "appropriately," even when I didn't agree about why they were in there. Frankly, when I returned from my hiatus I was shocked at how efficient the system had become at banning "problem" theists. WWGHA always had a very anti-Christian sentiment, but this was the first time (that I'd seen, anyways) that it had developed rules that could be enforced subjectively to ban anyone who didn't play the atheists' game. And I saw it happen again and again.

Of course, the post that got me banned came about because I thought that a mod was abusing their privileges in-thread. So I looked to see if there were any posted guidelines on what mods could and couldn't use their mod privileges for in-thread. There were, and what I saw appeared to be in pretty clear violation of it. I pointed this out to a good-standing, atheist poster on here, and they agreed. I then looked to see if I had any recourse, and saw a post that spelled out to what extent a member could challenge a staff member in-thread, and built my post accordingly. (I don't know if those posts are still around now, and I'm too lazy to look.) I ran it by that same atheist friend before posting, and was told that it was completely reasonable. We were both pretty shocked when I signed on the next day to a perma-ban for a rule that didn't even exist (and still doesn't, except in the ER, which I never went to.)

Quote

IMO the best forums I've visited work by that mechanic, because it allows a moderator to deal with disruptive situation that's not technically against the rules if you were to use any legal interpretation. It doesn't suit everybody or every forum's goals and that's fine, you can't please everyone.

Well, that's all well and good. In the future I will keep in mind that when I see a thread that specifically says, "You can do x as long as you don't do y," it means that doing x while avoiding y is lawyering. That should steer us clear of any problems, right?

Quote

So welcome back to the forums. I hope it works out for you and hope to see all of us getting along.

Well, from what I've heard things have changed around here a bit. If it's still moderated pretty much the same way then I'll probably get banned again at some point. I don't have any particular attachments here, so there's nothing holding me back from speaking my mind if I think something smells funny. If I get banned, I get banned. Until then, I'll just amuse myself as I've been doing so far.

BTW, thanks to Gnu and you for turning this silly thread into a serious one. I bet this reply alone has gotten me a fresh new thread in the admin forum. Yippie!

Interesting you'd complain so much about our behaviour here and how the mods operate, but a theist like Maggie? She shows some pretty damn detestable behaviour, but she's just Maggie.

Quote

And then, of course, there are the many individual stories of members who felt mistreated over the years not related to that early drama. You see, when anti-WWGHA sentiment shows up on IGI, very rarely is it from someone who hasn't been here. Nearly every single post is from someone who tried this forum and came away with bad memories. Now, you can write off some of the above as exaggeration or hearsay, and I fully admit that I was not a first-hand witness to most of it, but my point is that this isn't just one or two pissed off parties poisoning the well. There are an awful lot of people who have had an awful lot of problems with this site, which is why it baffles me that you would make a comment like that.

You wouldn't believe how many theists come here and don't show our forum rules the right amount of respect and often don't allow themselves to be accountable for the things they say. THIS is when people end up getting banned or finding themselves becoming the so-called 'bad' guys. We get people who dodge, stonewall, preach, refuse to back up claims, throw strawmen, make innaccurate (and sometimes pretty insulting) assumptions, people when they receive heat suddenly start shifting goal posts and even lying. Sometimes atheists get banned for this, our most recent was Kymer...or I think, but it's difficult to tell because he wasn't very honest - he first claimed to be a theist and later an atheist. Frankly, we get pretty sick of it too. Nobody ever seems to consider that side of the argument. No we're the intolerant atheists who hate theists and aren't interested in an honest discussion with them but are intent on banning them.

We occassionally get a theist who doesn't break those rules and seeks to do their best to respect them. Our latest was Magic Miles, but nobody ever goes on about the theists who people grow fond of. Funnily enough MM was the theist Maggie accused me of treating like dirt. I'm sure even MM himself would find this ridiculous. He didn't give a reason for his leaving, but he did find himself not being able to offer the same level of dedication to a thread as others had - the guy seemed pretty active to me (always out & about doing things and not spending time at the computer) and it seemed as though he was spending more time here than he had hoped. I'm still in contact with him too as are ther forum members, he was one of the good guys. Even when I did engage him (and not banter in thread) I didn't treat him like dirt. Surprise, surprise, when I challenged Maggie to find one example of where I had treated him like dirt, she ignored me (and I kept asking too). [edit]Read MM's leaving thread to get an idea of how people viewed him.

People like to make those kinds of accusations because they don't like the way we do things, we're strict, we hold people to account for what they do and say and we can be pretty vigorous, some can be rude and employ sarcasm. The Shelter now exists, which exists because we recognise that people don't like that style of discussion all the time, as it's time consuming and probably a wee bit demoralising in that all your arguments might be put under a high level of scrutiny. Heck, not even I always want that level of discussion.

Yes, I admit some members can be rude. Generally if I think if someone is stepping out of line then I will likely mention it (generally I don't because people are normally capable of standing up for themselves), though mods don't moderate people based on rudeness. Heck, Maggie wasn't even moderated on her rudeness, she was a chronic rule breaker and had no interest of sticking to our rules. I personally wasn't going to engage her properly in a real discussion because often she'd claim something, offer something rude and insulting and not properly back it up (often back up was more claims) - to me that would be a waste of time. She ignored posts of mine trying to reason with her, but instead went out with the s**t flinging and tried to bring other people into it (and some did). Believe it or not, she's not the first theist out there to display behaviour like that, I don't think we've had many that have been that extreme. It's no use passing her off as opinionated, her behaviour was out of order. I'm opinionated, but I know how to respect a forum's rules and its members.

You'll also see we give positive karma to theists when their behaviour is heading in the right direction and also try and offer them encouragement in that respect.

I have been on the receiving end of this forum's style. Guess what? I liked it. Why? Because I feel my points get a strong amount of scrutiny - I don't necessarily change my view (though I have done in the past) but I can see how weak or how strong my points are. Yes, I have been met with sarcasm and where I've made something like a strawman (perhaps unknowingly) or way back when I was a newbie here, when I posed some pretty poor logical fallacies they got stamped out. The difference with me being on the receiving end has been how I handle myself. You'll notice when people handle themselves in an honest & straightforward manner they don't encounter the problems people seem to complain about. For example, view the Buddhism thread or heck the 'Smacking Children' thread, they're a couple of recent threads where you've got atheists on either side of the argument.

Also, we've got ex-theists on here who also were on the receiving end when they were theists yet they don't seem to view our behaviour as intolerant or detestable. I won't speak on their behalf and put words into their mouth as they're perfectly capable of offering their opinion if they so wish.

But the arguments between IGI and WWGHA seem to be petty at times. We're different forums, but it seems not everybody accepts that or likes that fact. I like the way things work around here. Yes, you need thick skin here and it's not for everybody. If people don't like it, there's the door. It's as simple as that.

Quote

Not baffled that you personally don't see a point in it, of course. Moreso baffled in the overall message of what you're saying. Imagine someone telling a black man, "Anyway, once in a while we see this conflict between the two races and don't fully understand why it actually happens - we know what has happened and the reasons for it, yet see little point in it - at the very least I don't see much point to it (I can't speak on behalf of everybody else)." The point is that it's easy for one side to slight a group of people and then say, "My bad!" and expect them to get over it. It's a lot harder for the other side to ever trust them again, especially when the offending parties are still in charge.

So essentially as a forum we're prejudiced towards theists? It's interesting how many of the people we ban suggest that they're not being banned for their own behaviour but because we're the big bad intolerant atheists. Generally people don't accept responsibility for why they were banned. They ignore the fact we hold our own to the same standard, ignore the amount of reasoning they've received and we often try to reason with theists and try and get them to stay so we can have an fair and honest discussion. It's usually what we see in ER. Sometimes it is a case of a "you banned me because you can't handle the truth" sort of mentality. We've had cases of theists coming out of ER, even NATHAN (another recent case), who admitted to trolling, but he seemed to disappear off the map after he invited people to watch a 'faith healing' to encourage a discussion.

This isn't a case of "my bad". I don't even agree with the decision to unban you and I don't think anybody believes it was a 'bad' decision to ban you in the first place (though they're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong). I am willing to let that slide to give you a chance, because I understand that having war between 2 forums is pointless and trying to build bridges is a much better option. But I won't be dishonest about what I think - so I'm not going to say you were wrongly banned to help build that bridge, as I don't believe it. I don't know if it's something that makes you uncomfortable, but rest assured, it doesn't mean I'm gonna hold you to a different standard to anybody else.

If this results in us having positive discussions with you on these forums and you being seen as offering a positive contribution and there being little or no conflict, then I will be happy with the mods' decision. But, I will withhold judgment, because they don't always make the right decision (IMO), for example, the unbanning of DaveDave the theist slayer.

Quote

Well, that's all well and good. In the future I will keep in mind that when I see a thread that specifically says, "You can do x as long as you don't do y," it means that doing x while avoiding y is lawyering. That should steer us clear of any problems, right?

I'd suggest that you've still not learned. That's not even what lawyering is.

The mods ask you not to do something.You pull out the rule book and dictate to them how you're not in the wrong. You find any loopholes in the forum rules or find some way to undermine their authority on how the forum is run. You cannot possibly be in the wrong.You persist. Moderators act.

The exact same thing happens on other forums to keep things in order. Most people who are told not to lawyer on a forum usually cease because they realise that mods can ban them. A forum I am thinking of doesn't say "no lawyering" in their rules either. It's not a religious discussion forum like this one, it isn't theist vs atheist nor does it have a group type where mods could be prejudiced towards people. People are judged for their behaviour and not their beliefs.

We're not special in this respect.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 06:05:56 AM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Interesting you'd complain so much about our behaviour here and how the mods operate, but a theist like Maggie? She shows some pretty damn detestable behaviour, but she's just Maggie.

I can't speak for Maggie. She's her own person. Like I said, Maggie is Maggie, and likely will never change. How you deal with her is your own prerogative. I was not around when she was posting on here, and I'm not going to drag anyone's reputation--good or bad-- from IGI over here. You guys are more than capable of judging her on her own merits without my input.

Quote

You wouldn't believe how many theists come here and don't show our forum rules the right amount of respect and often don't allow themselves to be accountable for the things they say.

Of course I would. I was on WWGHA for four years before I was banned. You probably still get a lot of drive-by preaching. Frankly, the website is set up to attract these people: it's going to rile up the most sensitive and angry of them, and then link them to the forum. Again, that's an issue for you to deal with.

Quote

No we're the intolerant atheists who hate theists and aren't interested in an honest discussion with them but are intent on banning them.

I can only speak to my own experience. This site has always been hostile to theists, but it was around 2010 that I noticed the ban hammer was especially hammery. I don't know how it has been since then, so I have not passed judgement on today's practices.

Quote

I have been on the receiving end of this forum's style.

So have I. It never bothered me much in the past, except for that period in 2010 where it seemed like the moderators were using their powers to keep it from being a fair fight. Again, a lot could have changed in 2 years, and I've heard through the grapevine that things have simmered down a bit. I've also noted that you've changed your policies to integrate the warning system feature, so it's clearly not the same exact system.

Quote

But the arguments between IGI and WWGHA seem to be petty at times.

The last argument between IGI and WWGHA was sparked by certain members who came over and rubbed people the wrong way. Some of them were vocal about comparing the two forums, which brought the old negative sentiment out of the woodwork and offended a few neutral parties as well. As I mentioned with Maggie above, there's no need to drag one forum over onto the other. Each forum has to stand on its own merits.

Quote

So essentially as a forum we're prejudiced towards theists?

Yes, definitely. It's been that way since WWGHA1, unless something has drastically changed recently.

Quote

it doesn't mean I'm gonna hold you to a different standard to anybody else.

Of course I would. I was on WWGHA for four years before I was banned. You probably still get a lot of drive-by preaching. Frankly, the website is set up to attract these people: it's going to rile up the most sensitive and angry of them, and then link them to the forum

It's these theists who usually end up with the 'bad' experiences. They came in to preach and make judgments on the members of the forum without having first engaged us and with no intention to engage us on fair grounds from there on. Yes, the site is provocative, but hey, I've been drawn into provocative sites over the web but I'm still able to play fair with their members and stick to their rules. If you're going to come here with the wrong attitude, then you won't last long. We offer people opportunities to change and we try to reason with them.

It's not a new thing from after you got banned and it has always been the case since I've been a member and it was the case when I was a moderator.

Quote

I can only speak to my own experience. This site has always been hostile to theists, but it was around 2010 that I noticed the ban hammer was especially hammery.

I know the mod team had grown tired of your lawyering. And the behaviour had been picked up before you were banned. Yes, the mod team were cracking down harder at the time, but it doesn't change the fact you lawyered.

Lawyering is actually a form of dodging. It was against the rules back then as it is now. It doesn't specifically say lawyering, but any form of dodging is still dodging. Unfortunately, it'd take some digging to get the posts from around that time and I believe some were deleted too.

Quote

So have I. It never bothered me much in the past, except for that period in 2010 where it seemed like the moderators were using their powers to keep it from being a fair fight.

You made dodges (lawyering counts) and logical fallacies and lawyered them way back when. Generally a mod acts because there isn't a fair fight.

Quote

Yes, definitely. It's been that way since WWGHA1

I am afraid you are wrong on this. It's provocative towards theists. But being prejudiced and provocative are not one and the same.

Ever since I've been here it has all be about behaviour and not beliefs. Not every theist has been banned and some theists even manage to make friends. Yes, it's hard work for theists and they do have the numbers against them. If we're so prejudiced, how is it that's we're capable of being leniant to theists who respect our forum's rules and its standards?

Lets go back to ER 2009/2010 (using a random sample because I don't have to time to sift through lots & lots of posts)Knot - atheist member. Banned for dodging, stonewalling, shifting goal posts and at times refusing to back up claims. (He was let out after his first visit, he went in a second time, but got banned afters)Faris Midyan - Muslim member. Death threats/general immaturity and insults. Banned.Whit555 - Refusing moderator instructions. Followed by insults and immature behaviour. BannedSkylark889 - Disruption in threads, ignoring moderator instructions and making cheap shots. BannedMatthew7812 - Theist. Evasiveness/Dodging and preaching. Made a recovery in ER. Not banned.GodSaves - General rule breaking. Refusal to have an honest discussion. Banned.ILoveJesus - Trolling. Joseph - Sent in for ignoring moderator requests surrounding quotes, was put in to get help. Further ignores comments with threats to make sock puppets. BannedKobesrulz - atheist, stonewalling, strawmen, dodging, shifting goal posts. BannedWootah - theist. Stonewalling, dodging and disruptive behaviour. Made a recovery, not banned.

This is pretty much what we get. This is the kind of things we got when I was ER mod. I used to browse the ER to try and help people get out of the ER, sometimes it worked, a lot of the time it didn't. I did put up those 2 atheists up on purpose because I remember those 2 cases very well (mainly because I debated them & encountered all the issues I listed AND tried to help them out of ER). They displayed the exact same traits we've criticised theists who come here for and they got the exact same treatment. Theists who HAVEN'T behaved like that or have learned from their mistakes have managed to get along just fine with the forum. Any theist you may have encountered who feel hard-done-by probably did something to earn the action made against them.

We've held people all to the same standard. So just because we attract more theists who aren't willing to keep to our rules and fair standards of discourse doesn't mean we're prejudiced. Yes, they may not always get the best reaction out of people - but it can be really disrespectful when somebody's putting the time and effort to thoughtfully engage you that you run them around in circles on a wild goose chase. THIS is what happens and I don't think I can always blame people if they lose their temper for it. Some people here have stepped out of line before, but that doesn't happen that often (I'd say it's very rare), usually when it does somebody picks them up on it.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe," I'd have been lying! - Magritte

The text exists within the context being represented. As such, from within its own reference frame, the text is false: The pipe could indeed be stuffed, smoked, broken. This could all be done to/with the image, and the image would represent stuffing, smoking, or breaking of a pipe. Text within the same image should accurately refer to the reality it shares with the pipe.

The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe," I'd have been lying! - Magritte

This person does not understand language. Does she have an email? I can set her straight, if you want.

The text exists within the context being represented. As such, from within its own reference frame, the text is false: The pipe could indeed be stuffed, smoked, broken. This could all be done to/with the image, and the image would represent stuffing, smoking, or breaking of a pipe. Text within the same image should accurately refer to the reality it shares with the pipe.

I've always read the text as a step out from the image, as a caption below rather than as part of the same "reality" as the pipe. But even if the image is of a pipe floating above text, there's no guarantee it's actually a pipe in the painting. Magritte may very well have painted an image of a pipe, in which case that is merely an image floating above the text. We just don't know.